Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-incubator-flex-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-flex-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id DA90F9B5E for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 10:39:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 40256 invoked by uid 500); 17 Feb 2012 10:39:21 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-flex-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 40225 invoked by uid 500); 17 Feb 2012 10:39:21 -0000 Mailing-List: contact flex-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: flex-dev@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list flex-dev@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 40215 invoked by uid 99); 17 Feb 2012 10:39:21 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 10:39:21 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.6 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [74.125.149.149] (HELO na3sys009aog123.obsmtp.com) (74.125.149.149) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with SMTP; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 10:39:12 +0000 Received: from mail-iy0-f180.google.com ([209.85.210.180]) (using TLSv1) by na3sys009aob123.postini.com ([74.125.148.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKTz4uO9eaBrrqSzTxxSrgn2VkBYarLzM6@postini.com; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 02:38:52 PST Received: by iabz7 with SMTP id z7so6104094iab.25 for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 02:38:51 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.50.181.134 with SMTP id dw6mr22766692igc.11.1329475131362; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 02:38:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.0.13] (97-118-162-128.hlrn.qwest.net. [97.118.162.128]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ng9sm11178689igc.3.2012.02.17.02.38.49 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 17 Feb 2012 02:38:50 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Subject: Re: [DECISION] Unit Testing and Mocking Frameworks From: Jun Heider In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 03:38:49 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: References: <7cebf2a6-85dc-49ae-b589-4cab43be5af0@blur> <4F392A83.9020802@leichtgewicht.at> <01d101ccea66$62dce7f0$2896b7d0$@davidarno.org> <4F39312D.6030300@leichtgewicht.at> <01dc01ccea68$0cf3e2b0$26dba810$@davidarno.org> To: flex-dev@incubator.apache.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmHq21EdylV3DlpdHESmP53Sf8aK61KtGHV2JdBiSpbbjio7btR78SYf77eJhtID6EFJ89F On Feb 17, 2012, at 3:36 AM, Omar Gonzalez wrote: > > The short answer is yes. > > Unless there are objections if there is a "lazy consensus" reached there is > no need to [VOTE] on everything, we'd never get anything done that way I > imagine. You can read more on the decision making process here: > http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html > > -omar Yep, I think you and I responded at the same time. Thanks.